Dear Governor Christine Gregoire, Lt. Governor Brad Owen, and State Senators and Representatives of the State of Washington:

SUBJECT: TRUTH IN MARRIAGE

For your convenience, the "Bill Digests" for the above-referenced bills are as follows:

HJR 4211 - DIGEST

Proposes an amendment to the state Constitution ensuring only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in Washington.

HB 1963 - DIGEST

Ends discrimination in marriage based on gender and sexual orientation in Washington.

SB 5793 - DIGEST

Ends discrimination in marriage based on gender and sexual orientation in Washington."

The issue of same-sex or same-gender (including what has become, through usage, "orientation") marriage in a secular setting, as in a religious or spiritual one, is a matter or question of sanctioning or licensing such arrangements. For the most part, it has come down to a question of civil liberties and rights.

I won't re-hash all of the science here: whether or not one is born homosexual for instance. The most recent twin study clearly shows that there is no controlling gene. I won't even focus directly, but rather indirectly, on the question of whether or not what people do in their bedrooms in private and consensually harms others. What I want to focus on and to focus you on is fundamental truth.

If homosexual marriage is sanctioned by the secular state, then the state is making a statement concerning the behavior(s) that is the homosexual or are homosexual acts.

The main homosexual act historically that has been the central focus of concern is sodomy or anal intercourse. At one point in American civilization, sodomy was universally illegal. That changed as a result of the beginnings of the same movement to greater licensing that is now promoting homosexual marriage.

It cannot be denied that a certain percentage of heterosexuals engage in sodomy. It is not a completely different issue, but it should not prevent society or you as an individual and elected official from addressing the matter of that said main homosexual act in a fundamentally truthful manner.

Before I continue, I want to inject here the concept referred to as "cognitive dissonance." Many people shy away from citing the Wikipedia as authoritative. However, concerning the Wikipedia article on cognitive dissonance, there is no reason to do so. As of the date of this letter, the opening of the introductory paragraph there states the following:

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions or adding new ones to create consistency.

There is a fundamental truth concerning the said main homosexual act that once it is confronted, there appears great cognitive dissonance on the part of many. Cognitive dissonance should not be the basis for lawmaking other than to avoid it.

So, now I pose the fundamental question, a question of first principle, the correct answer to which necessitates, if cognitive dissonance is to be avoided, to the correct position vis-a-vis not only homosexual marriage but also homosexual acts, whether in terms of secular law or personal behaviors and beliefs.

Do penises belong in anuses?

"Belong" is the operative word there. Is it proper, appropriate, or suitable that a penis be put up the rectum of another human being?

I don't wish to introduce here a debate concerning Creation versus evolution. I will say though that regardless, design does enter the question. From the function of the sexual organ known as a penis, is it logical to conclude that it belongs in the non-sexual orifice known as the anus or rectum? Is the anus a sexual organ?

From those questions many others follow. Some will follow directly on account of cognitive dissonance. Those ought summarily to be rejected. What must be avoided are rationalizations.

Questions of oral and other sexual acts arise that are not vaginal intercourse but are also not anal intercourse. Such other acts are actually irrelevant to the fundamental truth concerning anal intercourse. Those other acts do raise issues of consistency though. Regardless, good lawmaking requires proper first principles. Bringing everything into alignment should flow from that if the lawgivers are themselves facing things squarely as opposed to deceptively, whether wittingly or not.

The fact of the matter is that penises definitely do not belong in anuses. It necessarily follows that the state should not stake out a position contrary to that fundamental truth or fact. Sanctioning homosexual marriage would run exactly contrary to the fundamental truth about said act.

This gives rise to questions concerning females (who do not have penises with which to engage in anal sex of the kind in which male homosexuals nearly universally engage). Here again, it is a matter of consistency as with oral sex or other acts. What follows from first principles? First, deal truthfully with homosexual sodomy regardless. Then make the rest of the law consistent with that position. Female homosexuality runs afoul of the same fundamental question but geared to female anatomy, physiology, and pathology. Female homosexuality cannot be taken in isolation from the fundamental reason why penises do not belong in anuses but rather vaginas.

The fundamental truth is that homosexual sodomy is an error. It is not free of mental error. Now, that upsets many homosexuals and those who are pro-homosexuality or at least believe they are fighting for homosexual "rights." However, it must be noted that where people are challenged (to use the politically correct term) with any number or type of sub-optimizations, the secular state still affords them rights and rightly so in many cases. That state can overreach and often does, but the scope of that subject would be a huge digression from the immediate and first objective of my letter here to you.

(As a quick aside just to state an example of overreach, currently in Greece, which as you know is suffering greatly from austerity measures, there is an open debate over state disability payments being made to pedophiles. Pedophiles are actually getting disability payments at a higher rate than concerning other and very serious afflictions. This has upset many people who need monetary assistance with more urgent and immediate medical needs. Disability to pedophiles is a clear attempt at compassion; but the system is out of balance, which balancing aspect is relevant to the homosexual-marriage issue here.)

The point though is that if the secular state wishes to afford the right to homosexuals and others to marry under state law, then at the very least, that state should not do so by way of even remotely suggesting to anyone that the said homosexual act is proper. It is not proper, and the state should not be about the business of creating ambiguities concerning it and certainly should not be standing on the false claim that "there is nothing wrong with it."

The further truth is that ultimately, the error that is that said act cannot be properly reconciled with marriage. The other challenges are of a different category. That is not to say that the secular state would never be taking the correct position in saying that certain individuals with certain diseases should not reproduce.

I am not a eugenicist. I am referring only to the avoidance of what would facilitate certain pandemics and the like. Those with any such diseases should be of a mind to not reproduce. There are people who have freely made decisions not to reproduce because they have unselfishly concluded that the risk of harm is too great. I greatly admire such decisions.

In conclusion, while my personal belief system is that of Christianity, which in my reading requires applying the least coercion possible, I am writing to you as an advocate of truth and not as one seeking to use the coercive force of the secular state.

What I want is that you base your decisions regarding the definition of marriage squarely upon the fundamental fact that penises do not belong in anuses. Concluding that penises do not belong in anuses but then voting for homosexual marriage sanctioning sodomy would be the result of cognitive dissonance or worse: wittingly lying. Such a vote would assuredly cause huge, needless confusion rippling throughout society and especially amongst the youth being taught in our public schools.

It is extremely important that the laws not send confusing, mixed signals and, again, especially to our youth. Sanctioning homosexual marriage would absolutely send such a confused, wrong signal.

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office

Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions

Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election

Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election

Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.

Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.

We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.

When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.

It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.

We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).

We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.

When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.

We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.

It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

— reflects cleared transactions only —
On the PayPal payment-page, enter a note in the "Add special instructions to merchant" text box. Your note will show in the chart above once your transaction has cleared.
— World GDP: to translate it all into Christian Commons —